Have you looked at how long it takes to get there *now*? Probably won't gain you time from major coastal hubs, but try getting from White Plains, NY to New Orleans, LA - if you only have to change planes once each way. Pick somwhere a little further from a major airport pair and it gets a lot more interesting having the rail option.

in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.

FlashHarry:in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.

That isn't the point. Unless it's substantially cheaper than flying, it won't be used....so it will be nothing but a government sinkhole. The fastest bullet trains in the world travel around 150mph. A trip from New York to LA would take 18 hours of travel time (non-stop and not accounting for time changes). A flight is 5 hours and 45 minutes. Just looking it up, a one-way non-stop flight to LAX from NYC is $328.

Even now, a one-way trip on Amtrak from New York to LA costs $218 and it takes 5 days (3 stops).

It's simple math. There's no way to make that affordable and self-sustaining to the point it will be a viable alternative to flying.

slayer199:FlashHarry: in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.

That isn't the point. Unless it's substantially cheaper than flying, it won't be used....so it will be nothing but a government sinkhole. The fastest bullet trains in the world travel around 150mph. A trip from New York to LA would take 18 hours of travel time (non-stop and not accounting for time changes). A flight is 5 hours and 45 minutes. Just looking it up, a one-way non-stop flight to LAX from NYC is $328.

Even now, a one-way trip on Amtrak from New York to LA costs $218 and it takes 5 days (3 stops).

It's simple math. There's no way to make that affordable and self-sustaining to the point it will be a viable alternative to flying.

And you can declare it as uneconomical without any knowledge of the cost of a high speed ticket, how?

slayer199:GAT_00: And you can declare it as uneconomical without any knowledge of the cost of a high speed ticket, how?

Look at the existing costs. It's already $218 to take a train to LA from NYC. Are you even going to try and argue that it will be LESS expensive with $200billion dollars of new infrastructure?

It is like our pharmaceuticals. We pay a lot for early users and the research costs are high. It is not the overall cost that matters as much as the public good. Money should not get in the way of doing what is right.

Oh and according to that map I would be able to travel from Atlanta to Las Vegas without flying. Very nice idea. Even if the funds and collective political will were there today, I would still be a very old man before it could happen.

FlashHarry:in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.

There isn't a single passenger rail system in the world that generates enough revenue to cover the costs. They are all subsidized. Europe, Japan, and China all have to funnel money each year into their passenger rail systems above and beyond what they take in via tickets.

I believe it's a worthy subsidy, but liberals need to stop pretending that passenger rail isn't a money loser long-term. Be honest about it: it's going to cost way more than it will ever bring in, but we do it for the same reason we keep the interstate system up and running - it's a public benefit.

So I'm in after a libtard tries to lie about the economics of passenger rail systems.

Dead for Tax Reasons:Nah too many wasteful stops in the middle. Up and down the coasts is fine, but crosscountry you need express from ny to chicago and maybe stop at denver then on to the left coast

Do you know how trains works? There are express lines and local lines. They run on the same tracks (basically). There's very little downside to including more local stops if there's sufficient demand. Once you build the express line the infrastructure is already in place other than the stations themselves, which aren't that expensive.

DamnYankees:Dead for Tax Reasons: Nah too many wasteful stops in the middle. Up and down the coasts is fine, but crosscountry you need express from ny to chicago and maybe stop at denver then on to the left coast

Do you know how trains works? There are express lines and local lines. They run on the same tracks (basically). There's very little downside to including more local stops if there's sufficient demand. Once you build the express line the infrastructure is already in place other than the stations themselves, which aren't that expensive.

Hey just guarding the rail line from terrorists will generate 25,000+ full time jobs. Another thousand high speed snow plow drivers. A few thousand track workers. Guys to wash off the high speed bug splatters and birds every 1,000 miles or so. It all adds up.

Make it affordable and I'm all for train travel. I've flown and have ridden on Greyhound buses across this country numerous times. Both ways sucked. I would have preferred train, but it was too expensive. My question is how much would tickets cost after spending 200 billion to make it happen? Like others said, this isn't a high speed railway through France or Belgium.

What if it was a bunch of linking regional systems? Maybe not a straight shot from NY to LA but you can go from the northeast to Chicago area to the west? Divide the US into 6 regions so that you can get the benefits of high speed rail in the region but still be able to take the train cross country.

/highspeed to Atlanta would be sweet//or to Florida to visit the folks///Florida needs a good rail system, driving from Tampa to Orlando or Miami sucks

SarahDiddle:What if it was a bunch of linking regional systems? Maybe not a straight shot from NY to LA but you can go from the northeast to Chicago area to the west? Divide the US into 6 regions so that you can get the benefits of high speed rail in the region but still be able to take the train cross country.

If you look at the map, that's exactly what it is. Heck, that's exactly what the Interstate system is.

cameroncrazy1984:muck4doo: My question is how much would tickets cost after spending 200 billion to make it happen? Like others said, this isn't a high speed railway through France or Belgium.

Like others have said, why not? Why CAN'T it be like that? Nobody says you have to use the whole system all at once.

I'd like it to be like that. I have already said so. Next trip to NY or San Jose I would love to take the train. But face it, 200 billion is a lot of money to make it happen. You can bring up our interstate highways, fact is, they are already there. People can drive or fly as it is. Amtrack is too damn expensive for the time and travel. I would like to see high speed rail, but I just don't see how it will be cost efficient compared to what we have now. This isn't Europe or Japan with a bunch of large population centers close to each other.